Matthew 12:40

[rstrats]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

[rstrats]

I probably should have addressed to OP to those who think that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week, and who think that the "heart of the earth" refers to the tomb.

[rstrats]

Someone new looking in may know of some writing.

[OReilly]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

A day is a period of darkness that is followed by a period of light of the same duration.

A day on the North pole, is six months of darkness followed by 6 months of light, a day on Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc, etc, are all periods of darkness followed by equal periods of light, but no two days are of the same duration.

The three hours of darkness, from Mid-day to 3 PM, which was followed by the three hours of light, from 3 PM, to 6 PM, was the day when Jesus was killed and buried in the family tomb of his half brother, Joseph of Arimathea, which had never been used, suggesting that the father of Mary's second son, was still alive at the time of the crucifixion.

Although sometimes a day can refer to the period of light alone, as Jesus once said, "A Day has 12 hours has it not? So work while the light is with you."

The first day in which Jesus was dead, was the 3 hour period of light that followed the three hours of darkness on Thursday, which was the day of preparation to the Passover, the first night was Friday night, the night when the Jews ate their Passover lamb, the second day was Friday, the third night was Saturday night, and and the third day was Saturday, and it was sometime in the evening, which was the beginning of Sunday night, that he rose from the grave, and the women who came in the darkness of Sunday morning, found the tomb to be empty.

My view is somewhat different from yours. Jesus died on the cross - on Friday, so that is when we ought to begin to count - when his soul at death goes to the realm of the dead, 'in the belly of the earth', like Jonah.

Day 1: Three Hour Darkness (night 1); followed by remaining Friday daylight (day 1)

Day 2: Friday night (night 2); followed by saturday day (day 2)

Day 3: Saturday night (night 3); followed by Sunday 'day' - commencing at dawn (day 3).

Therefore, we get three days and three nights; or "on the third day" or even 'after', meaning the appearance of the third day.

[rstrats]

OReilly,

re: "Day 1: Three Hour Darkness (night 1)..."

But the Messiah was alive during those three hours and not in the "heart of the earth".



re: "Day 2: Friday night (night 2)..."

How could it be the 6th calendar day's night when that night was over before the Messiah was put on the cross?




re: "Day 3:... followed by Sunday 'day'..."

John 20:1 indicates that the Messiah had risen before the day portion of the 1st calendar day of the week had begun.

[OReilly]

OReilly,

re: "Day 1: Three Hour Darkness (night 1)..."

But the Messiah was alive during those three hours and not in the "heart of the earth".



re: "Day 2: Friday night (night 2)..."

How could it be the 6th calendar day's night when that night was over before the Messiah was put on the cross?




re: "Day 3:... followed by Sunday 'day'..."

John 20:1 indicates that the Messiah had risen before the day portion of the 1st calendar day of the week had begun.

I don't think John 20:1 poses a real difficulty to what I propose. The day portion begins with dawn - so 'darkness' is not a problem; and Mary Magdalene is said to have "went" to the tomb - which could simply mean that is the time she set out for the tomb, not the time she arrived.

[rstrats]

Since it has been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the crucifixion took place on the 6th day of the week and who thinks that Matthew 12:40 is using commom idiomatic language,may know of some writing.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to rstrats]

The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen inthe reckoning of the reigns of any of the kings of Israel or Judah. But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (John 1:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2Cor. 11:25 denotes a complete day (Gr. nuchthemeron).
When Esther says (Est. 4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, because she adds (being aJewess) "night or day". And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night. In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1Sam.30:12)"had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights". Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian (vv. 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner(see Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol. xi. p.77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated. Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17) it means exactly what it says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matt.12:40; 16:4. Luke 11:30,

"THE THIRD DAY."
In the first mention of His sufferings (Matt. 16:21) the Lord mentions the fact that He would be "raised again the third day". In John 2:19 He had already mentioned "three days" as the time after which He would raise up "the Temple of His body". The expression occurs eleven times with reference to His resurrection (Matt.16:21;17:23; 20:19. Mark 9:31; 10:34. Luke 9:22;18:33; 24:7, 46. Acts 10:40. 1Cor. 15:4.).
We have the expression "after three days" in Mark 8:31, used of the same event. This shows that the expression "three days and three nights" of Matt. 12:40 must include "three days" and the three preceding "nights". While it is true that a "third day" may be a part of three days, including two nights; yet "after three days", and "three nights and three days" cannot possibly be so reckoned. This full period admits of the Lord's resurrection on the third of the three days, each being preceded by a night.
But, why this particular period? Why not two, or four, or any other number of days? Why "three" and no more nor less? We notice that the man who contracted defilement through contact with a dead body was to purify himself on the third day (Num. 19:11, 12).
The flesh of the peace offering was not to be kept beyond the third day, but was then to be burnt (Lev. 7:17,18) as unfit for food. John Lightfoot (1602-75) quotes a Talmudic tradition that the mourning for the dead culminated on "the third day" because the spirit was not supposed to have finally departed till then (Works, Pitman's ed., vol. xii.pp.351-353).
Herodotus testifies that embalmment did not take place until after three days (Herod. ii. 86-89).
The Jews did not accept evidence as to the identification of a dead body after three days. This period seems, therefore, to have been chosen by the Lord (i.e. Jehovah, in the type of Jonah) to associate the fact of resurrection with the certainty of death, so as to preclude all doubt that death had actually taken place and shut out all suggestion that it might have been a trance,or a mere case of resuscitation. The fact that Lazarus had been dead "four days already" was urged by Martha as a proof that Lazarus was dead, for "by this time he stinketh" (John 11:17, 39). We have to remember that corruption takes place very quickly in the East, so that "the third day" was the proverbial evidence as to the certainty that death had taken place, leaving no hope

===============================================


After looking at each passage it is clear to me that there are two points of reference that all gospel accounts agree on. They all agree that Jesus' body was placed in the tomb at sunset as the day of preparation ended, and they all agree that His body was gone sometime prior to the sun rising on Sunday, the first day of the week.
There appears to be a contradiction between Mark and Luke's account. Mark 16:1 states that the women bought spices "after the sabbath" and Luke 23:56 states that they then rested "on the sabbath after they bought spices". John states that the bodies should not remain on the crosses because "that sabbath day was a high day" John 19:31. This term "high day" refers to the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread regardless of what day it falls on during the week.
It should be noted that the gospel accounts of Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; and John 20:1,19 each use a plural form of the word sabbath. In Mark's account it is preceded by a singular form of the word which suggests that the first form of the word indicates what transpired after that sabbath while the plural form indicates what happened after two sabbaths.

"1 And when the sabbath(singular) was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week(Gr. sabaton-gentive, neuter Plural), they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."

Unger's bible dictionary deals in great detail with the birth of Christ, and he concludes (along with Augustus W. Zumpt, Mommsen, Ideler, Bergmann, Browne, Ussher, and Sanclemente) that the census by Cyrenius occurred in 4 B.C.
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church

" And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:1-2

The next question is, "when did Herod die?" The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod died "having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, 34 years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, 37" (Antiquities, xvii, viii, 1). So the two dates for the beginning of Herod's reign are not disputed, but given as 37 B.C. and 40 B.C respectively.

Josephus also mentions an eclipse of the moon before the death of Herod. That eclipse has been calculated to have occurred about March 13, 4 B.C. (Antiquities of the Jews, xvii, vi, 4). However it was after this that Herod went beyond the river Jordan to be cured of his diseases. This evidently revived him enough to come up with his idea to kill off all the men in Judea. According to Josephus Herod died just prior to a passover. That passover could not have occurred one month after that eclipse, but must have been just over a year later.
If Jesus was born in 4 B.C., then he would have begun his ministry in A.D. 27 for Luke states, "And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age..." Luke 3:23
We also have a remarkable prophecy from Daniel. In Daniel 9:25 we read,

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

This period between the commandment to rebuild the temple and the beginning of Christ's ministry amounts to 69 weeks, or a total of 483 days which stands for 483 years as is common reckoning in prophecy. (see Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:4-6)
Ezra states that he went up "in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king" (Ezra 7;6-8). Many historical references show that he was raised to the throne in 465 B.C., but his first full year of his reign wasn't until 464 B.C. because the remainder of the year 465 is credited to the previous king and called the year of
ascension for the new king. The seventh year would have been 457B.C. If we add 483 to the year 457 B.C. we arrive at the year 27 A.D. (remember that there is no zero year)
John also records that the Jews pointed out that "forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:19-20) Josephus wrote: "And now Herod, in the 18th year of his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work, that is to build of himself the temple of God..." (Antiquities of the Jews, xc,xi, 1) In the article on Herod, Unger's Bible Dictionary states, "Herod began the rebuilding in 20 B.C., as a whole it was literally true that the temple was 'built in forty and six years,' when the Jews so asserted to Jesus (John 2:20)". So Herod began to build in the year 20 B.C. Forty six years later would be A.D. 27 (no year zero).
If we count three and one half years from the fall of A.D. 27 we arrive at the Passover in the spring of A.D. 31, and on that year the Passover fell on Wednesday.
In A.D. 28, Passover was Monday, in A.D. 29 Passover was Saturday, in A.D. 30 and 31 Passover was Wednesday, in A.D. 32 Passover was Monday.
If John 2:20 is correct Herod would have had to begin building the temple in 21 B.C. in order for Christ to have been killed in A.D. 30, but there is no evidence for that at all. Josephus, Unger's Bible Dictionary, and many other secular historians agree that the temple was started in 20 B.C. If Christ were 30 years old in 30 A.D., he would have been born in 5 B.C. which would have been prior to the requirement for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem.

The Plural form of Sabbath occurs in John 20:1 as well as Acts 20:7. In both cases it is in the plural form because of it's placement within a feast, or the sabbaths of those feast days. In 1. Corinthians 16:2 we see the singular form of the word which would be the ordinary form.

In Luke 6:1 we read, "And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that He went through the corn fields; etc.". This phrase, "the second sabbath after the first" represents only one word in teh Greek (deuteroprotos), i.e. the second-first. The first and seond sabbaths can occur only in the week of the three great Feasts. The first day of these feasts is a Sabbath "high day" (Heb. "yom tov), nad the "first" or great sabbath, whatever day of the week it falls on (see Lev.23:7,24,35), the weekly sabbath then becomes the "second".

This "second sabbath" was therefore the ordinary weekly sabbath as is clear from Matt. 12:1. Not seeing this the current Greek texts solve the difficulty by omitting the word altogether. L Trm. WH, R.

[rstrats]

shnarkle,

Since it appears that you are not a 6th day of the week crucifixion advocate, you probably don't know of any writing as requested in the OP.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 46 by rstrats]

Obviously I'm not a 6th day crucifixion advocate as I plainly pointed out that all four gospels state that he was placed into the tomb on the preparation day. I responded to your question with documentation. Did you read it? Here's what you were "wondering" in your oddly worded OP.


"I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?"

[rstrats]

shnarkle,

re: " I responded to your question with documentation. Did you read it?"

Indeed I did and no where in your "documentation" did you show any examples of a phrase stating a specific number of days and/or a specific number of nights from the first century or before when they absolutely couldn't have included at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights. Quite the opposite in fact.


re: "Here's what you were 'wondering' in your oddly worded OP.

Hopefully I made it a bit less odd with my posts #10, #12 and #39.